In theory, no. We call the process of analyzing reality "the scientific method" or some variation on that. This requires a reproducible test to get past the peer review BS meter. Any anything not natural is not reproducible.

For example, "Hey, this guy just turned water into wine!" Really? Let me taste....ahhhh...B.S. No way!"

Just an example of one scientist actually on the scene.

You haven't demonstrated there is any such thing as the "non-natural". You just keep CLAIMING it over and over. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. It's actually quite sad that you refuse to see the error in your reasoning. It's weird though b/c you did see your errors at least twice before. Why not again?

The point of that post was to illustrate that any outside influenceif it were to occur, would not be reproducible or demonstrable. There is no error in knowing the limitations of ones research.

I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting. Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God? How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Bear in mind that you're claiming that God does things in the physical universe at the same time as you state that physical evidence doesn't apply to God. This is a major contradiction; how do you resolve it?

I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting. Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God? How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. I've not had any so far.

Quote

Bear in mind that you're claiming that God does things in the physical universe at the same time as you state that physical evidence doesn't apply to God. This is a major contradiction; how do you resolve it?

According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.

I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting. Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God? How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. I've not had any so far.

You would know if you've had failed connnections? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Bear in mind that you're claiming that God does things in the physical universe at the same time as you state that physical evidence doesn't apply to God. This is a major contradiction; how do you resolve it?

According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.

Ah, but how does god manage to relate to the believers. Does he -

Directly tell believers what they are to do - in which case he does things in the physical universe (i.e. believers' brains) OR

Believers think they know what god might want in which case they do what they perceive to be the right thing though they have no direct knowledge of god's intentions.

Oh, and where can we find this in the bible - chapter and verse please.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Lets's say your "Why" is Meth. All your decisions in life revolve around your WHY. Sadly, the drug can be mixed wrong and your life ends.

if meth is my "Why" and it's fucking up my life, i would readily accept criticism, look inward at my folly and i may still continue doing it.

You can either test your theory on what you would do or find additional support for your theory in the form of published data or create your own. If you have a good "Why" for your actions, you'll be more likely to succeed in your goal of finding the answer.

No person lifts their pinky finger from the ground without a good reason why, first.

A lot of times we don't know why we do things.

Who can say why we are attracted to certain people and not to others? Religions say it is all because of a powerful creator being. So there is no need to question further. Except we have to wonder why the creator being made some people gay and attracted to the same sex, some people asexual and attracted to nobody, and some people pedophiles attracted to children.

Science gives a better way to investigate these things, logically and systematically. We may not get the answers quickly. We may get wrong answers sometimes. And we may not get the answers we want. But we will get answers with more support than any religion has.

I'll keep this simple, SkyWriting. Now that you've arbitrarily ruled out physical standards of evidence for God, how do you show that you're actually having conversations with God, rather than with a figment of your imagination that you've built up and developed that you think is God? How do you show that the things which happened in the physical universe that you attribute to God were actually done by God, rather than by purely random chance that happened to break in your favor?

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. I've not had any so far.

So, every time you pray to god, you get exactly what you ask for? Without fail? Or do you get some result that you decide was what you wanted or needed all along? I think I already asked you why you don't ask god to end all child abuse, famine and warfare. Please. God will listen to you, or so you say.

(You copped out before, and told me that I should fix those things. I am not the all powerful creator. I can only do so much, because I have to work in the real world. But the creator god could rearrange reality to fix it instantly, right?)

Yes. At that time, one only had to think and it was so. Spirit ruled the material. There was no death at that time.

Not true according to scripture. God warns Adam he will die if he eats from the tree. The warning is meaningless gibberish if death does not already happen.

"Do not eat from the tree at the center of the garden or you will barglewop." G"Um, barglewop? What does that mean?" A"When you are barglewop, you no longer move and eat and breath." G"So, sleep." A"No, barglewop. With sleep you do breath and eventually wake up. When you are barglewop you never get up again." G"Why would I never get up again?" A"Because you would no longer live." G"But I do live. How would I not live? Will I be happy not-living?" A"No, you will be barglewop and your snitfong will go to Antpharm." G"Where is Antpharm? Is it a nice place? What is my snitfong? Why would only part of me go to Antpharm?" pauses then asks, "Is my snitfong my penis when it is hard? And is Antpharm Eve's –" A"SHUT UP AND DO NOT EAT FROM THE TREE!" G

Nothing we've found even hints that matter can be coaxed into biological activity. Even water is lethal if not in the correct dosage. The creation of life is a very very delicate balance of millions of factors. It all points to intelligence as the source. ...I can't be persuaded away from intelligent design because intelligence gets things done, and stupid produces nothing.

By your 'logic' that means plants are intelligent? They grow and reproduce but if they have no intelligence they couldn't do that? Or was that just very badly stated?

So no matter exists in a life form? What are we made of then?

Biological activity is at its basis chemical activity and matter does interact chemically. I thought they would have covered this at your school too. Oh, just so you know, chemistry at its basis is physics.

This relates to an issue that I think contributes to people like SW failing to grasp how the universe works. In our (American and wherever SW grew up) schools we teach the sciences as different subjects – biology, chemistry, physics, etc – but we never really teach how they are all interconnected. So a true understanding does not occur for many people. They don't see that you can't deny evolution without denying the rest of science upon which our technology works. Yes, a few have so they seek to corrupt the teaching of science in general – mainly the YEC who depend upon the lack of understanding to sell their crap product.

Expanding upon wheels5894 point about odds and coincidence. If there is a 1 in a billion chance how rare is that? A crucial unspoken aspect is the time frame. A 1 in a billion chance over how long a time? A century? A decade? A month? A day? If the event is 1:1,000,000,000 chance each day per person then it will happen on average 7 times today and every day. So what sounds rare isn't really. Now, 1:1,000,000,000 chance each decade per person means an average of 7 times in this decade. A rare event but happening close to once per year worldwide.

So, if abiogenesis has a 1:100 trillion chance to happen – per when? Per lightning strike (if that is how it happened)? Well there are many tens of thousands per year[1]. If I call it 100,000 per year then abiogenesis has a 1:1 billion chance of happening per year. So after 1 billion years abiogenesis is not guaranteed to happen but is extremely likely.

If it was instead a chemical reaction near underwater thermal vents called white smokers.

Quote

White smoker vents emit lighter-hued minerals, such as those containing barium, calcium, and silicon. These vents also tend to have lower temperature plumes. These alkaline hydrothermal vents also continuously generate acetyl thioesters, providing both the starting point for more complex organic molecules and the energy needed to produce them. Microscopic structures in such alkaline vents "show interconnected compartments that provide an ideal hatchery for the origin of life".

Chemical reactions happening every minute of every hour of every day in even only a few thousand well, some numbers: 5000 white smokers times every minute gives 2,628,000,000 chances per year. Meaning a 1:100 trillion chance becomes extremely likely in only 38,051.75 years. A 1:1 quintillion chance (1 with 18 zeroes after it) means 380,517,503.81 years. And it only takes that long if it happens on the last occurrence of 1 quintillion.

When you consider the facts, the idea of abiogenesis is quite reasonable.

The point of that post was to illustrate that any outside influenceif it were to occur, would not be reproducible or demonstrable. There is no error in knowing the limitations of ones research.

A few points here:

1. As I said before you haven't demonstrated there is such as thing the "non-natural"

2. Given 1, there is no reason to think that the concept of "outside influence" makes any sense whatsoever

3. Even if such "influence" were possible, there is absolutely no reason for merely assuming what is or is not possible regarding it. Again you are making assumptions based in your own credulity.

Finally, yes, you should know the limitations of your research enough to admit when you are ignorant of things (including cosmology and what is or is not possible).

1. I did but you are only using your natural senses, so remain unaware. 2. See 1. 3. Such assumptions are required. If I could test them, they would be under my control and natural.

1. Only using my natural senses huh? So you think you have senses that aren't natural? Again, please demonstrate how you know this. So far, all you keep doing is making empty claims that are indistinguishable from fairy tales.

2. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise, there is no reason to take what you say seriously (anymore than any other quack fundamentalist, astrologer, dumb dumb, propping up superstition).

3. NOPE! 100% wrong. Another arbitrary statement you haven't backed up. "Such assumptions" are NOT required for anything. That is the fallacy you keep telling yourself to continue believing the lie of your religion (which you assumed from the start of it), but it's a false assumption. This statement demonstrates quite clearly that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true. You just want to believe what makes you feel comfortable. Hey, if you don't really care about truth that much, no problem. Just say so - but then of course that makes you little more than a troll on these forums (someone who just came to be an ass and start shit with everyone instead of someone who truly cares to have an intellectually honest discussion about whether their beliefs stand up to sound critical thinking).

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. I've not had any so far.

I find this completely unbelievable. It is far, far, far more likely that you are applying confirmation biasWiki without realizing it[1]. Basically, you only remember the times when events conform to your beliefs; when they don't, you don't consider it a hit. Since you're only remembering the hits and not the misses, you thus believe that you haven't actually had any misses.

Quote from: SkyWriting

According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.

It doesn't matter if God acts on his own or acts through believers - it's still him acting directly on things that exist in the universe. If he's acting through believers, then he's still acting on those believers. It's like when you have an electrical current flowing through a wire; the wire is affected by the presence of the current even though the current itself is just passing through. Thus, the contradiction still exists - there should still be still physical evidence of God's actions, on the believers that he's presumably acting through.

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. I've not had any so far.

I find this completely unbelievable. It is far, far, far more likely that you are applying confirmation biasWiki without realizing it[1]. Basically, you only remember the times when events conform to your beliefs; when they don't, you don't consider it a hit. Since you're only remembering the hits and not the misses, you thus believe that you haven't actually had any misses.

Especially note the part about how the effect of confirmation bias is stronger for emotional issues and entrenched beliefs.

That is a valid theory. Except There have only been a hand full of requests for Godto immediately step in and handle a crisis. And the response has been 100%.So confirmation bias is ruled out.

There are PLENTY of times I've prayed for green traffic lights so I could get to an appointment on time. I've never taken those prayers seriously and would not countany such frivolous requests, even thought the "results" seem to be on the high side. That I would attribute to confirmation bias.

Thus, the contradiction still exists - there should still be still physical evidence of God's actions, on the believers that he's presumably acting through.

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm." Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.I don't think that reaches the "physical" threshold you mentioned though.

1. Only using my natural senses huh? So you think you have senses that aren't natural?

I have noted prayers being answered and having a "conversation" with another being who answers. This is not considered "natural" by natural man or by spiritual people.

Quote

2. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your claims. Otherwise, there is no reason to take what you say seriously.

You are not even required to respond to a post of mine. You have no responsibilities to me at all.

Quote

3. This statement demonstrates quite clearly that you don't really care whether or not your beliefs are true.

I already have "tested" my faith and found it true. The most interesting aspect of "Faith"is that it clears a lot of cobwebs out of ones thinking that kept me from logicallybelieving in the Christian faith. Things that only show up after one assumes thatit's not all rubbish. For example, someone asked me about how Judas died becausethe two descriptions were different. I "knew" they were not. By assuming they were notI was able to easily see how the two descriptions were illustrating the same event.

Such randomness would require a good number of failed connections. I've not had any so far.

I find this completely unbelievable. It is far, far, far more likely that you are applying confirmation biasWiki without realizing it[1]. Basically, you only remember the times when events conform to your beliefs; when they don't, you don't consider it a hit. Since you're only remembering the hits and not the misses, you thus believe that you haven't actually had any misses.

Especially note the part about how the effect of confirmation bias is stronger for emotional issues and entrenched beliefs.

Confirmation bias seems to affect a lot of Christians who come here. As far as claiming prayer to be effective, it is an essential tool since objective studies of prayer seem to point to there being no effect at all.

Quote

Quote from: SkyWriting

According to the Bible, God does his work on earth through believers and has no direct control of matter.

It doesn't matter if God acts on his own or acts through believers - it's still him acting directly on things that exist in the universe. If he's acting through believers, then he's still acting on those believers. It's like when you have an electrical current flowing through a wire; the wire is affected by the presence of the current even though the current itself is just passing through. Thus, the contradiction still exists - there should still be still physical evidence of God's actions, on the believers that he's presumably acting through.

Of course the other possibility I mentioned might really be the answer here - that there is either no god or one away on extended leave and the 'believers' just act by following the simple rules in the holy book or rather the rules they like and adapt the rest to suit their own ideas. Thus they follow the 'loving god' bits and ignore quite a bit of 'loving enemies' and make up stuff like anti-abortion and anti-evolution.

Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

That is a valid theory. Except There have only been a hand full of requests for Godto immediately step in and handle a crisis. And the response has been 100%.So confirmation bias is ruled out.

No, it isn't. Indeed, the fact that you can only think of a few times when you made these requests actually strengthens the likelihood that it's confirmation bias on your part rather than a legitimate actor working on your behalf. For example, you could easily have rationalized something that seemed crisis-like down to something more manageable that you could (and did) handle on your own when your prayer wasn't granted without being aware that you were even doing it. This is how the human mind operates. Things that seemed far more critical and important to me when I was younger (or even a few weeks ago) dwindle in importance over time. Eventually, they drop completely off the radar - matching my revised expectations of their importance, after the fact. I'm not at all surprised that you don't remember them - as I said, this happens subconsciously unless you make a deliberate effort to get around it (say, by recording every event as it happens in a way that isn't subject to fallible human memory)

I was playing a tabletop RPG a few weeks ago, and I rolled a natural 20 (instant critical hit) - and then rolled another natural 20 to confirm it. You can be sure I'll be remembering that one for a long time. But I couldn't tell you the results of most of the other rolls, except a general feeling that I wasn't especially lucky. Give me a few months, and the only thing I'll remember out of that session is that pair of 20s.

Quote from: SkyWriting

There are PLENTY of times I've prayed for green traffic lights so I could get to an appointment on time. I've never taken those prayers seriously and would not countany such frivolous requests, even thought the "results" seem to be on the high side. That I would attribute to confirmation bias.

Did you actually read the page on confirmation bias? Confirmation bias is when your subconscious adjusts your expectations of reality to match what you thought should have happened with what actually happened. As you just said, you wouldn't expect such frivolous prayers to be answered in the first place, so there was no need for confirmation bias to wipe away the discrepancy when they didn't actually happen.

Some stories I've read were that "God woke me up in the middle of the night to come help you cross the river during the snowstorm." Such stories helped my come to my current conclusions.I don't think that reaches the "physical" threshold you mentioned though.

But it does illustrate confirmation bias, since I seriously doubt those people remember all the other times they woke up in the middle of the night when nothing special was happening. People remember the times that stand out and forget the ones that don't.

Anyway, to address the other point, it doesn't matter whether it's minor or major. If God does something, it leaves behind traces that could be detected. And that completely leaves aside the problem that comes as a result of picking examples like that - you're making God essentially powerless to do practically anything unless a believer does it for him (more to the point, does it with only their own abilities - so much for miracles such as divine healing, turning water to wine, and magically multiplying food to feed a giant crowd!), in order to avoid the thorny issue of explaining why he doesn't leave traces of himself behind that could be picked up. And that flat-out ignores all the times that people attribute some event to God - not some believer doing it for him, but God actually doing something in the world.

Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?

20 years of examination of the facts. I do know when confirmation bias apply's and when It doesn't. I've experienced both.

In case you hadn't noticed, what you just stated above is a contradiction. If you don't know when confirmation bias applies, and when it doesn't, how you could know that you have "experienced both"? This is why I posted that quote earlier (irrationality and illogical arguments). However, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. For that, congrats. So now that you've acknowledged that you can't tell when you're practicing confirmation bias, don't you think it would be a good idea to do some research and find out when you are - so that you can stop doing it?

Furthermore, 20 years of "examination" isn't any good if you have been practicing confirmation bias and/or ignoring facts that would overturn your life investment in one interpretation of the bible.

I have noted prayers being answered and having a "conversation" with another being who answers. This is not considered "natural" by natural man or by spiritual people.

Nearly every religion on the planet makes similar claims to having a special god detector but it doesn't make them real. Claiming that you have had "answered prayer", or claiming you have conversation with some divine deity, doesn't mean that you actually do. You could just as easily (and far more likely) be misinterpreting your own self projections (which is very common around the world). This is why we have peer reviewed science (using logic, reason, and evidence) in order to separate fact from fiction.

You are not even required to respond to a post of mine. You have no responsibilities to me at all.

Could you be anymore redundant?

You have made multiple extraordinary claims on this forum and have been asked to demonstrate how you know those claims refer to something actually real. You've also been asked whether you actually care if your beliefs are true or not - to which you avoided the question by making yet another mere claim to knowledge (more empty claims with no evidence).

So again, it seems you aren't really interested in having a real discussion about your belief system and whether or not it stands up to logical rigor. Most of us here are interested in rational interchange and intellectual honesty - not empty claim making and question avoidance. Can you handle that? If so, please demonstrate it.

I already have "tested" my faith and found it true. The most interesting aspect of "Faith"is that it clears a lot of cobwebs out of ones thinking that kept me from logicallybelieving in the Christian faith. Things that only show up after one assumes thatit's not all rubbish. For example, someone asked me about how Judas died becausethe two descriptions were different. I "knew" they were not. By assuming they were notI was able to easily see how the two descriptions were illustrating the same event.

What you have just described is called...CONFIRMATION BIAS.

This thing that you call "faith" is the demonstration of believing things when you have no good reason to do so (as well as starting with your conclusion, which is backwards). This is why faith is not a pathway to truth. It is unreliable for separating fact from fiction (and it too you assumed was valid b/c you merely read the bible and ASSUMED IT was true). The sign of the absurdity of this "faith" is when you pretend to know things that you don't know. It is an excuse that you are making when you don't have good reason for believing these claims. It is unreliable when other religions do it and it is unreliable when you do it.

So this idea that you "tested" your faith is absurd. Once you have tested something it is no longer faith. And I completely understand why you would say that your faith "clears the cobwebs" - b/c it's easy just to believe something without having to do any critical examination or disinterested investigation (i.e. - any hard work to get rid of the cobwebs!). Believing first and then looking for confirmation is both lazy and backwards, and again, it's called Confirmation Bias. It's wrong for everyone including you.

So again, it seems you aren't really interested in having a real discussion about your belief system and whether or not it stands up to logical rigor.

There are no claims of faith that stand up to logical rigor.I'm amused that no one has figured that out and youneed a person of faith to tell you that. The rules of thisforum do not allow people like myself to engage you in conversation. I'm not supposed to be here and am beingmonitored so that I don't make any statements that are contrary to your world view. I'll be lucky if this is postis approved because I am fully aware that Faith of anykind is the opposite end of the spectrum from "logic".

But you folks are under the illusion that faith is logical.It's not. Faith is the opposite of logic. It is acceptingthe unseen. Sorry. Your rules only allow for liars.So that who you get to talk to.

Faith defies logic. Your rules only allow liars who pretendthat faith is logical. They are sucking up to the lie thatfaith is logical. It never is. That's the Truth.

Skywriting, how do you know there is a god actually active and the situation isn't as I suggest above?

20 years of examination of the facts. I do know when confirmation bias apply's and when It doesn't. I've experienced both.

In case you hadn't noticed, what you just stated above is a contradiction. If you don't know when confirmation bias applies, and when it doesn't, how you could know that you have "experienced both"? This is why I posted that quote earlier (irrationality and illogical arguments). However, the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. For that, congrats. So now that you've acknowledged that you can't tell when you're practicing confirmation bias, don't you think it would be a good idea to do some research and find out when you are - so that you can stop doing it?

Furthermore, 20 years of "examination" isn't any good if you have been practicing confirmation bias and/or ignoring facts that would overturn your life investment in one interpretation of the bible.

You are free to read between the lines. But it's good form to read the lines again a second time.